The Conservatives are playing a spoiler role on electoral reform

At a hearing of the special Commons committee on electoral reform this past week, it seemed Maryam Monsef had finally heard enough from the Conservatives about the need for a referendum on replacing first-past-the-post.

“Mr. Chair …” she said to her Liberal colleague Francis Scarpaleggia. “I’m tempted to call you Mr. Speaker, because I feel like we’re back in question period.”

She wasn’t wrong about that — and she was quite right to call the Conservatives out for apparently having nothing to contribute apart from more arguments in favour of a referendum on whatever the committee recommends to the government by December, and whatever legislation the Liberals adopt by their self-imposed deadline of next May, 18 months after taking office.

In their questioning of the democratic institutions minister Wednesday afternoon, all the Conservative MPs seemed willing to do was carry on beating the drum. Scott Reid, the Conservative dem-reform critic, was particularly unrelenting.

In the end, the Conservatives were both unpersuasive and unsuccessful. Monsef wouldn’t play their game or show her hand. She gave as good as she got, and then some.

“Although I recognize that a referendum is one way of seeking clarity from Canadians,” she replied at one point, “I remain to be convinced it is the best way.

File that kernel of wisdom under ‘Brexit’. The unravelling of the United Kingdom since its narrow 52-48 vote to leave the European Union has been rapid; the leaders of both the Remain and Leave sides have since resigned, leaving it for others to clean up the mess they made.

Anyone who remembers the near-miss of the 1995 Quebec referendum knows that a referendum can be a dangerous thing.

But the Conservatives are obsessed with the referendum question — to the point where they seem incapable of talking about anything else.

The Conservatives’ preoccupation with the referendum question is preventing them from playing a constructive role in the committee. They really do sound as if they’re back in QP.

They were at it again on Thursday, when Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand and his predecessor Jean-Pierre Kingsley each appeared for two hours before the committee. The Conservatives actually were upstaged on the news of the day, when Green Party Leader Elizabeth May asked Mayrand how much it would cost to hold a referendum. “Our estimate,” he replied, “is that under the current Referendum Act it would be around $300 million to run a referendum.”

“Clearly our democracy is worth the amount,” Reid replied. No one quarrels with him on that, but the Conservatives’ preoccupation with the referendum question is preventing them from playing a constructive role in the committee. They really do sound as if they’re back in QP.

Mayrand and Kingsley were both impressive and informative presenters to the committee. Kingsley, who was in the job for 17 years from 1990 to 2007, represents institutional memory. And as the NDP’s David Christopherson pointed out, Kingsley’s retirement from the CEO job gives him “the ability to give opinions.”

“Canadians must be able to see themselves” in whatever electoral reform is adopted, Kingsley declared. “… What is (it) that best fits the temper of Canadians?”

One of the questions before the committee is the matter of mandatory voting. Kingsley pointed that there’s no such thing as compulsory voting. You can have mandatory voting, as they do in Australia — but you can’t prevent a voter from spoiling a ballot.

On electronic voting, Kingsley held up his smartphone and reminded committee members that this is the world we’re now living in. It’s also the way, he said, to reach young voters “who don’t watch television.”

“Online voting is coming fast,” he said. “That light at the end of the tunnel is a train.” Online voting would, for example, allow people with disabilities to vote without having to go to the polls. The question is how to prevent people from voting early and voting often. Preventing voter fraud is one thing at a voting station — but would be quite a different challenge online.

As it happens, Prince Edward Island may show the way this fall in a non-binding online referendum on provincial electoral reform, one in which 16- and 17-year-olds will also be allowed to vote from October 29 to November 7. Islanders will be asked to choose among five options, including the status quo of FPTP, mixed-member proportional representation and preferential ballots.

All of these options will be discussed during the special committee’s summer road show across Canada. MPs are also being asked to organize town halls in their 338 ridings in the House. That might prove a challenge in the middle of summer. Then again, this is an issue people care about, on all sides, and MPs might be surprised by the level of voter engagement.

Meanwhile, back at the committee, Monsef asked and answered a very important question: “Why consider changing such a successful democracy?

“First-past-the-post is an antiquated system, designed to work in 19th century Canada … not designed to work in our multi-party democracy.”

That remains to be seen, and the voters remain to be heard. She said she wanted to hear from them, and “not just the usual suspects, some of whom are in this room right now.”

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.

More from iPolitics

Author

L. Ian MacDonald is editor of Policy, the bi-monthly magazine of Canadian politics and public policy. He is the author of five books. He served as chief speechwriter to Prime Minister Brian Mulroney from 1985-88, and later as head of the public affairs division of the Canadian Embassy in Washington from 1992-94.